Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 12:41 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed for Thanksgiving Day

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Boeing Company Message Board

  • corned_beef_dude corned_beef_dude Feb 11, 2013 8:04 AM Flag

    The Ignorance Caucus

    Last week Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, gave what his office told us would be a major policy speech. And we should be grateful for the heads-up about the speech’s majorness. Otherwise, a read of the speech might have suggested that he was offering nothing more than a meager, warmed-over selection of stale ideas.

    To be sure, Mr. Cantor tried to sound interested in serious policy discussion. But he didn’t succeed — and that was no accident. For these days his party dislikes the whole idea of applying critical thinking and evidence to policy questions. And no, that’s not a caricature: Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

    And such is the influence of what we might call the ignorance caucus that even when giving a speech intended to demonstrate his openness to new ideas, Mr. Cantor felt obliged to give that caucus a shout-out, calling for a complete end to federal funding of social science research. Because it’s surely a waste of money seeking to understand the society we’re trying to change.

    Want other examples of the ignorance caucus at work? Start with health care, an area in which Mr. Cantor tried not to sound anti-intellectual; he lavished praise on medical research just before attacking federal support for social science. (By the way, how much money are we talking about? Well, the entire National Science Foundation budget for social and economic sciences amounts to a whopping 0.01 percent of the budget deficit.)

    But Mr. Cantor’s support for medical research is curiously limited. He’s all for developing new treatments, but he and his colleagues have adamantly opposed “comparative effectiveness research,” which seeks to determine how well such treatments work.

    What they fear, of course, is that the people running Medicare and other government programs might use the results of such research to determine what they’re willing to pay for. Instead, they want to turn Medicare into a voucher system and let individuals make decisions about treatment. But even if you think that’s a good idea (it isn’t), how are individuals supposed to make good medical choices if we ensure that they have no idea what health benefits, if any, to expect from their choices?

    Still, the desire to perpetuate ignorance on matters medical is nothing compared with the desire to kill climate research, where Mr. Cantor’s colleagues — particularly, as it happens, in his home state of Virginia — have engaged in furious witch hunts against scientists who find evidence they don’t like. True, the state has finally agreed to study the growing risk of coastal flooding; Norfolk is among the American cities most vulnerable to climate change. But Republicans in the State Legislature have specifically prohibited the use of the words “sea-level rise.”

    And there are many other examples, like the way House Republicans tried to suppress a Congressional Research Service report casting doubt on claims about the magical growth effects of tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Do actions like this have important effects? Well, consider the agonized discussions of gun policy that followed the Newtown massacre. It would be helpful to these discussions if we had a good grasp of the facts about firearms and violence. But we don’t, because back in the 1990s conservative politicians, acting on behalf of the National Rifle Association, bullied federal agencies into ceasing just about all research into the issue. Willful ignorance matters.

    O.K., at this point the conventions of punditry call for saying something to demonstrate my evenhandedness, something along the lines of “Democrats do it too.” But while Democrats, being human, often read evidence selectively and choose to believe things that make them comfortable, there really isn’t anything equivalent to Republicans’ active hostility to collecting evidence in the first place.

    The truth is that America’s partisan divide runs much deeper than even pessimists are usually willing to admit; the parties aren’t just divided on values and policy views, they’re divided over epistemology. One side believes, at least in principle, in letting its policy views be shaped by facts; the other believes in suppressing the facts if they contradict its fixed beliefs.

    In her parting shot on leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton said of her Republican critics, “They just will not live in an evidence-based world.” She was referring specifically to the Benghazi controversy, but her point applies much more generally. And for all the talk of reforming and reinventing the G.O.P., the ignorance caucus retains a firm grip on the party’s heart and mind.

    NYT / 10 Feb '13

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hooz_beef_ dude

      You might want to tell Paul Krugman that Norfolk was built on a swamp that is sinking. Think of quick sand. In Krugman's irrational mind, if he stepped into quick sand he would claim the world around him was rising and then blame it on climate change. That is exactly what he is doing in this screed by saying climate change is the reason that Norfolk VA. is seeing a rise in ocean level. When the land is sinking rapidly, which it is, the tidal gauges on that land are also sinking and are no longer giving an accurate reading of actual sea level rise.

      It was a nice attempt though to copy and paste the thoughts of a blithering idiot that thinks everyone else is the problem.

    • First off you're rather ignorant as to anything meaningful that comes from GOP policy suggestions in the way of being accepted by you libtards. Our fascist President, and your leftist Senate leader just schitcan anything suggested. The country could have had good healthcare reform had you not decided before hand you would ram through a miserble socilalist, corrupt bill. The wasted $800 Billion dollar stimulus bill, that Obama admitted was wasted would not have haqppened given you had listened to Republicans.

    • Hey Hooz_beef _dude, the CBO has just published an update on the Social Security Trust Fund. You might want to read it to learn that the SS Trust Fund date when payouts exceed income has been moved up anothe 2 years to 2016. Wasn't Obamacare sold as something that would preserve SS? The reality of Obamacare and the "Waivers for friends of the Dems" program is not seeing much press coverage. If you are a champion of reality when are you going to accept the reality of why so many Obama supporters are getting waivers to Obamacare?

      At the moment, Washington DC is the "Twilight Zone" where reality is the enemy of both political parties at the moment.

 
BA
134.78-0.03(-0.02%)Nov 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.